February 15, 2019

(In)Security – Weekend Open Thread

by wj

These musings about the American approach to security are not actually motivated by this week’s activities around Trump’s fantasy wall and its supporters. Although there are some obvious implications. Rather, they stem from the trip I took last week to Brussels. Specifically, about my observations concerning airport security in Europe, as opposed to at US airports.

One obvious difference is at security check points. At US airports, chances are you will get to empty everything out of your pockets, take off your shoes, and go thru the nudiescope. In Europe, nobody thinks you need to take off your shoes, and the metal detectors are set relaxed enough that you don’t even need to take off your watch.

But the other big difference, and one which particularly struck me, was that every airport that I went thru had pairs of soldiers, with semiautomatic weapons (and in jungle camo for some reason), patrolling. In US airports, I have seen lots of military personnel in uniform – but only because they were traveling. Not a weapon, let alone any serious weapons, among them.

The difference, I suspect, is that Europeans are serious about security. Whereas Americans seem mostly interested in the appearance of security – “security theater” if you will. So European governments mainly do things which will increase actual security. Whereas the American government does things that will serve as constant reminders to the traveling public that they have “done something” – whether it actually serves any useful security function or not. One has to wonder why that is. (And no, I don't have an answer on that.)

Of course, the same focus on symbolism over actual usefulness is reflected in the Trumpists’ obsession over Trump’s wall. Even if the problems that Trump (falsely) alleges were real, the wall would be of minimal use in addressing them. But as a symbol, it is apparently quite potent. At least for some.

wj, I can't help being interested in exactly why you think he wouldn't be around to see it.

Suppose it comes down to a real civil war; not just occasional individuals or small groups running amok, but something like a real war. The rational course, for those being attacked, is to strike first at those who demonized them, and called for violence against them. That is, those like Gorka.

Yup, that makes sense. Those who've been around these parts for a while know my opinion of Gorka, but I feel like re-affirming it: only in this insane looking glass world we currently inhabit could any significant number of people believe a buffoon like Gorka to be a highly educated foreign affairs specialist, or (the same subset of people) Trump to be a brilliant billionaire deal maker. I keep expecting that one day we'll revert to reality, then wondering if so much damage will have been done that a sane reality will be irrecoverable. Jaded is not the word.

I'd settle for the views of the wishy-washy right-wingers we still have among us. The Gorkas and the Bannons and the Digenovas would surely like to know also.

Assuming I'm one of the "wishy-washy right-wingers".... 🤔

No way I'm on, or anywhere near, a side with Gorka and/or Bannon on it. Less familiar with DiGenova, but he too sounds like someone whose absence (from the polity, and probably the genome) would be a plus.